Sandy v. Balkisson, 2026 ONSC 1458

CITATION: Sandy v. Balkisson, 2026 ONSC 1458

COURT FILE NO. CV-25-00746155-0000

DATE: 2026-03-11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

STEFAN APOLLO MARCELLE SANDY

Applicant

– and –

HEAVEN LASKYA LEILA-ANN LOVE BALKISSON

Respondent

Derrick M. Fulton, Lawyers for the Applicant

Nikolay Tenev, Lawyers for the Respondent

HEARD: DECEMBER 12, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

G. DOW, J.

1The respondent, Heaven Balkisson seeks a court order compelling her brother, the applicant, Stefan Sandy sell his 50% interest in 78 Lambeth Street, Brampton. They each have a 50% interest in the home. Heaven Balkisson seeks an order compelling Stefan Sandy to sell his interest to her at fair market value, subject to appropriate and existing adjustments.

BACKGROUND

2This matter has an unfortunate litigious and conflicted past. The property was purchased in March, 2024 by the parties’ mother, Veronica Balkisson so two of her children would have a place to live and raise their respective young families. Conflict between the parties began shortly after resulting in a court application to determine ownership of the property.

3The matter was argued January 14, 2025 before Justice Brownstone. Her reasons, released February 6, 2025 (2025 ONSC 856) found Veronica Balkisson had gifted the parties each a 50% ownership. Title to the property is apparently in Stefan Sandy’s name. A Certificate of Pending Litigation has been registered on the property by Heaven Balkisson given the parties apparent inability to prepare and file the required documents to reflect the court’s decision.

4This application was commenced by Stefan Sandy seeking relief under the Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4. Thus, Stefan Sandy is seeking to sell his 50% interest in the property. However, counsel advised and the materials relied were solely with respect to Heaven Balkisson’s motion to force her brother to sell that 50% interest to her at fair market value with the necessary adjustments for other incurred and outstanding expenses. This is despite both parties describing the situation as strained, with calls to the police about the behavior of the other or individuals acquainted with them.

5In support of determining fair market value, Heaven Balkisson served an appraisal report dated August 12, 2025 indicating the value of the property had dropped from the $905,000 purchase price in March, 2024 to $735,000. Counsel for Stefan Sandy submitted the appraisal was insufficient and undermined by the fact the appraiser was not granted access to the ground floor and above occupied by his client and family.

6As submitted by counsel for Heaven Balkisson, the proposed method of sale would eliminate payment of a commission to a real estate agent such as would be required if the application by Stefan Sandy is granted. Stefan Sandy takes the position, given his past dealings with his family, that he could no longer trust or deal with them.

ANALYSIS

7Counsel for Heaven Balkisson relied on the court’s discretion to find oppression had occurred and grant the relief sought as part of the court’s inherent equitable jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the case law relied on does not support this position. For example, counsel relied on the statement in Walker v Walker, 2024 ONSC 1508 that rebutting partition and sale can occur if the exercise of the court’s discretion can provide a result “more advantageous to the parties” (at paragraph 16). However, that statement is preceded by “the presumption is in favour of partition, rather than sale. However, a sale will be ordered if a court considers it to be more advantageous to the parties”. That statement relied on Garfella Apartments Inc. v. Chouduri et al., 2010 ONSC 3413 (at paragraph 11) which described a “sale has been found to be appropriate when the land is not suitable for partition”.

8To the contrary, the case law is clear. In 2004, the Justice J.E. Ferguson stated in Osborne v. Myette, 2004 7051 (at paragraph 15) “in my view this court does not have jurisdiction to order one joint tenant to sell his/her interest in jointly owned property to the other joint tenant. There is no such provision under the Partition Act and accordingly this court has no jurisdiction to make such an order”.

9Similarly, in 2014, Justice Perell in Brienza v. Brienza, 2014 ONSC 6942 (at paragraph 37) stated “the court does not have the jurisdiction to compel one co-owner to sell to the other, although the co-owners may participate in the court-ordered sale of the property in the open market”.

10Finally, in 2018, Justice Bell in O’Brien v. McGilvray, 2018 ONSC 2442 (at paragraph 14) stated “Partition or sale is the law’s answer when joint owners can no longer get along”.

11It was made clear in the material that proceeding by way of sale will result in each of the parties incurring additional expenses such as legal fees and real estate commission. Further, while Heaven Balkisson seeks a court impose a sale to her on Stefan Sandy, it is also clear that the funds required to contemplate such a transaction would not come from Heaven Balkisson but rather from her mother. To that end, it should be noted that Veronica Balkisson failed to pay the costs award in the previous proceeding presided by Justice Brownstone until same was garnished from her bank account. This raises concerns about the actual willingness and ability of Veronica Balkisson to payment of her appropriate amount could be determined. No direct evidence from her was tendered in this regard.

12Finally, and to be clear, sale of the property not does exclude the respondent (or her mother) or a proxy of their choosing from purchasing it on the open market.

CONCLUSION

13As a result, I am unable to find in favour of the moving party-respondent, Heaven Balkisson and this motion is dismissed.

COSTS

14I raised with counsel for Stefan Sandy, my concern that his materials and position was only to seek dismissal of the motion rather than determine the actual application including the necessary and detailed steps to proceed with sale of the property. It was Stefan Sandy who commenced this application but failed to tender the requisite evidence of necessary steps required to affect a sale, such as:

a) producing a list of proposed real estate agents from which Heaven Balkisson could pick to immediately proceed with listing of the property;

b) empowering that real estate agent or some third person to make decisions about maximizing the value of the property such as repairs indicated in the materials were required to achieve same;

c) how to determine a listing price; and

d) what percentage of a listing price any offer needed to reach or exceed in order to be accepted.

These are all concerns given the lack of trust and inability of the parties to agree. It also fails to move forward and end the strained relationship.

15I required each party to provide their Costs Outline and the amount they were seeking, if successful. Counsel for Stefan Sandy submitted a Costs Outline claiming substantial indemnity fees of $22,762.47, inclusive of HST. This compared to the Costs Outline submitted by counsel for Heaven Balkisson of substantial indemnity fees of $14,574.17, inclusive of HST, plus disbursements of $415.50 for a total of $14,989.67. Counsel for Stefan Sandy acknowledged the amount sought by counsel for Heaven Balkisson was reasonable as a result.

16Although Stefan Sandy has been successful in having the motion dismissed. I find this to be one of the rare instances where, given the discretion afforded under Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 and Rule 57.01, it is appropriate not to award the successful party his costs. My intention is to encourage the parties, through their counsel, to move forward expeditiously with completing sale of the property, liquidating their respective financial interest and ending what each has described as a strained, if not toxic environment where multiple young children are currently living.

17For clarity, the respondent’s motion is dismissed but there shall be no costs awarded to either party.